W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2014

Re: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:10:58 -0500
Message-ID: <5474FE72.5020102@intertwingly.net>
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
CC: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>


On 11/25/2014 02:04 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: Daniel Appelquist [mailto:appelquist@gmail.com]
>
>> Only commenting on the above point: there is a (possibly
>> philosophical) difference of opinion on which spec “implementers"
>> can or should be pointing to. I’m wondering if it’s possible to
>> come to a compromise solution that does not require us to resolve
>> this difference of opinion. For example, the snapshot could say
>> “This is a snapshot. Living version is [here]” and point to a
>> “living diff” between the snapshot and the living version (so that
>> anyone can determine just what the most up to date changes are),
>> with some wording about “we recommend implementers reference the
>> living version for the most up to date changes.” … rather than
>> saying “this is not for implementers” or “this is only for IPR
>> purposes.” ?
>
> I disagree with this kind of handwaving as a solution. The spec is
> authored as a living standard, and the editors believe implementers
> should consult the living standard.

Um, hello?  Might I interject here?

I'm an editor.

I disagree.

Let's continue to talk.  Meanwhile, please try to limit overgeneralizing.

I encourage you continue to state what you believe.  Meanwhile, please 
don't speak for me.

My preference is that we anchor this discussion with specifics.  If you 
like, I'd gladly drop down (preferably on a different list!) and talk 
about the parts of the URL specification that don't match reality as it 
currently exists, and both short and long term approaches to address 
these specific problems.

I've also sketched some of this out (minus the specifics) here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0185.html

> If there is a snapshot created
> for the purposes of the output of the W3C process (wide review, IPR,
> etc.) it does not change the editor's recommendation for implementer
> behavior. The snapshot should be clearly labeled with what its
> purposes were. (Another reasonable subtitle that captures this would
> be something like "Snapshot for purposes of the W3C Process"---unsure
> if that starts bordering on snarky?)
>
>> That way you leave it up to the implementer / developer to decide
>> based on their own needs whether to use the snapshot or the living
>> spec?
>
> Specs have a role in normatively recommending what implementers and
> authors do. We should not abdicate this role, even if it is
> politically expedient.

I'd also encourage toning down the rhetoric.  Implicitly associating 
what I have been advocating as "abdication" or "politically expedient" 
is not accurate or helpful.

Thanks!

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 22:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:13 UTC